United States of America v. Brandon Patrick Akana

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRANDON PATRICK AKANA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10602
D.C. No. 1:97-cr-00687-DAE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Brandon Patrick Akana appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 22-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Akana contends that the district court erred by impermissibly lengthening
FILED
JUN 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10602 2
his sentence based on the need for rehabilitation. We review for plain error, see
United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 279 (9th Cir. 2011), and find none. Though
the district court discussed rehabilitation during the sentencing hearing, it did not
impose or lengthen the sentence based on Akana’s rehabilitative needs. See Tapia
v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2392 (2011) (“A court commits no error by
discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of
specific treatment or training programs.”).
We decline to reach Akana’s argument that the district court improperly
relied on the need for punishment in imposing sentence because it is raised for the
first time in the reply brief. See United States v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990, 997 (9th
Cir. 2006).
Akana’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order granting the
government’s request to extend time to file the answering brief is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --